- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the order passed by the appellate authority dated 10-8-2000 by which appeal filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of the fair price shop licence was admitted but prayer for grant of stay has been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that appellate authority in not granting stay to the petitioner has committed a manifest error as licensing authority while passing order of cancellation has not examined the merits in the explanation so given by the petitioner against the show-cause notice/charge- sheet and in a cryptic and arbitrary manner order has been passed. Submission is that petitioner by giving details and by placing documents before licensing authority has fully proved that charges against him are false, motivated and superfluous and therefore, as that was not considered, it was for appellate authority to have applied his mind to the facts and detail and then he should have rejected/allowed petitioner's application. Learned Standing Counsel in response to above, submits that it was in discretion of appellate authority to grant stay or not and therefore, if on facts he was not satisfied that it is case for stay then no exception can be taken to rejection of stay application.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid the matter was examined in presence of the learned Standing Counsel and order of the licensing authority was also read in presence of all concerned besides the impugned order of appellate authority. On perusal of the order of licensing authority this Court finds that there is mention of service of the charge-sheet on the petitioner and thereafter his reply dated 18-5-2006 and then there is just a mention that "matter was examined and explanation has not been found to be satisfactory" and thereafter all kind of irregularities i. e. non-opening of shop in time, unfair distribution, charging the higher rate and unsatisfactory behaviour of the petitioner has been just mentioned. Thus it is clear that no reason has been given and no analysis has been made not to accept the explanation which is said to have been filed by the petitioner. Needless to say that satisfaction of the Court/authority is to be judged on perusal of the analysis of the explanation/arguments, the record and then reasons so given in the order to accept/not to accept the same. Higher forum may not be in position to go into the reasons which remains recorded in the mind of the concerned authority unless it comes out in writing in the order. Here is the case in which this Court finds that satisfaction so recorded by the licensing authority for holding explanation given by the petitioner not to be satisfactory remains his personal satisfaction as no analysis and reason appears in the order. The licensing authority was required to mention the charges and then explanation given by the petitioner and then evidence and thereafter the reasons on which the explanation given by the petitioner is not being accepted.;